Let's be honest about the NPPL

[Monocock]

Recently speaking to a well respected CFI at my local club I sensed a feeling of concern from them about the introduction of the NPPL.

The biggest concern (and one that I understand) is......

If 9 out of 10 PPL students take more than 40 hours to prove to their instructors and examiners that they are proficient enough to be awarded a PPL, then how the hell can a NPPL student do the same in quite a few LESS hours.

The PPL syllabus does not cover flying abroad, differences training, flying with more than 3 passengers etc. so how will they do it quicker????????

At the end of your replies I would be interested to know whether you approve of this new licence.

My vote.................Bin It.

[rustle]

How about medical requirements?

Even if it takes 100hrs to get an NPPL it is still attainable for someone who can't quite get a JAR Class 2 but can get an HGV medical.


Maybe the CFI should also understand that an NPPL isn't designed for "flying abroad"?



But so what - they shouldn't be flying anyway I guess...:rolleyes:

[Piper Warrior Pilot]

Before i get a load of criticism about this, I DID NOT SAY IT. lol

A flight instrucotr told me, and i quote:

"The NPPL is for old, retired, men. The wife's died, the kids have moved away, and they want to spend the rest of their couple of years on the planet by flying planes around farm strips.......ITS A COMPLETE WASTE OF TIME".

A bit harsh but i can see his reason. Most flight instrucotrs, want to teach people PPL's because they, generally want to progress further with CPL etc..., he did not seem to impressed by the fact that the instrucotr spend loads of time teaching omeone for a NPPL which is basically worthless. Cant fly outside the UK etc....

Basically its a waste of time.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Oh dear. Change your flight instructor before he contaminates you with any more such rubbish.

SSD

[Piper Warrior Pilot]

I said A flight instrucotr told me. Not my flight instructor. The FI which told me this doesnt even live near me. I was chatting to him on the telephone about it.

Just thought id clear this up.

regards

[rustle]

PWP,

2 things.

1. It is spelt I-N-S-T-R-U-C-T-O-R ;)

2. in a previous thread ("anyone ever dread lessons" or some such cack) you suggested that not all instruction was good instruction. I suggest you take your own advice :)

[BEagle]

The NPPL was introduced because that's what industry told us they wanted. So we designed a licence which is more affordable than the JAR-FCL PPL and which will meet the needs of many folks. Some will be the 'old men' about whom your 'FI' so rudely and scathingly spoke who wish to remain flying for as long as they can, having now regained the right to enjoy captaining a small aeroplane again. Some will be the struggling youngster who has gained licence allowances for his gliding and perhaps for his microlighting and who can just afford to complete a NPPL with SEP rating - he might one day be able to afford a JAR-FCL PPL, then modular CPL etc. But not right now.

Most of the NPPL criticism stems from the self-interest of the sort of (usually SE England) school which charges £144 per hour for a lesson in a Warrior- and knows full well that NPPL students with some gliding and microlighting under their belts will NOT be doing 45 hours at their establishment.

There are some people who seem to think that every student wants to be a people-tube FO and have forgotten that there are those who just want to fly around the UK for recreation. And that's what our NPPL is all about!

PWP - if I ever find out who that so-called FI was, he'll be sorry.

[Aerobatic Flyer]

Well said.

The NPPL may not be for everyone, but for lots of people it's ideal. It's also heartening that it's been introduced, and that there are "bureaucrats" who care about making flying more accessible in the UK.

The French aviation press has been singing the praises of the NPPL and asking why they can't have something like it in France, and why they can't have an IMC rating, or 28 day rules so they can have private strips, etc. etc.

The Brits meanwhile (or some of them, at least), don't realise when they've got something good and knock it at the first opportunity.

That's a bit sad, don't you think?:confused:

[Ian_Wannabe]

Hey,
Whilst we're on the topic of the NPPL I have a quick question.

A freind of mine asked me for some advice regarding the NPPL, he asked:

"I want to go commercial but i've heard that the NPPL is much cheaper and easier to do, what do you recommend?"

So I told him that if he intended to go onto commercial then he should do the full JAA PPL as you can't fly outside of UK airspace with a NPPL, so getting the NPPL licence would be pointless as it wouldn't allow him to go on to commerical flying for obvious reasons.

So he then asked:

"What if I do the NPPL, then when I can, do the JAA PPL to get the medical rating and the hours?"

To this I was a bit stumped so I told him in my opinion I would go the whole hog and do the JAA PPL as you get the medical and hours etc etc and you have no restrictions on your licence. Also, he wouldn't be allowed to go commercial with the NPPL so he'd have to go JAA PPL some day...

But, to help him some more i've come to you chaps!

Can you do the NPPL and then go on2 do the JAA PPL? (this seems very pointless to me, please tell me if you disagree and why)

If you do it that way, what are the advantages and disadvantages?


Cheers 'n happy landings :)

Ian

[Monocock]

I take on board what you are saying about the "retired" person wishing to fly and the NPPL making their flying wishes come true more easily.

Why though, (whether retired or not) should one person be issued a flying licence which allows them to take three friends flying from one end of the country to another, in a country where weather is known to be changeable, where high ground kills pilots each year, when health-wise they may not even be allowed to drive a lorry and to top it all they have received considerably less training than a PPL holder.

I'm not knocking the introduction of a "variation" to the PPL. What I am saying is that if the holder of one of these licences was less experienced and less healthy than a fresh PPL, aren't they adding more odds to the chance of another well publicised accident that could one day seal our fate as PPL holders.

The press are hardly going to differentiate between the fact that the pilot was a NPPL or a PPL.

[AerBabe]

Monocock, I believe that if you have a private driving licence you are able to fly solo only, or with another qualified pilot. If you pass the HGV medical then you can carry pax.

[rustle]

Monocock,

Interesting "fact" about high ground killing pilots...

Did you think before you wrote that?

Since the NPPL was introduced, what about 2 months ago, I guess your "research" relates to CAA/JAA pilots :confused:

Maybe "well respected CFIs" (your words) need to spend more time training people in basic flying skills than preaching!

FWIW, my view isn't changed from the previous discussion about JAA-PPL -v- NPPL.

But these reasons for knocking it are pretty crap.

[englishal]

The NPPL is not going to save anyone much money, and for people with medical problems who can't get a JAA class 2 medical, there has always been other ways to fly...for example an FAA licence. Doesn't take much effort to do a bit of research on this.

EA:)

PS I'm all for scrapping JAA though. I'm no airline wannabe, but I do want to fly around the UK in a ME aircraft in IMC...which I can't do with a NPPL !

[Piper Warrior Pilot]

I agree with you. The NPPL does fit the needs of many people and is ideal in that respect.

As i said in my first post on here, dont think that i said that the NPPL was for old men etc...

I do see the FI's point of view but i do not agree with it.

Well done to the founders of the NPPL.

[LowNSlow]

I cannot believe the arrogance of any instructor who thinks that training a person who has no desire to go beyond a PPL is a waste of time :mad:

Prats like that need to be reminded that it's the people who desire a PPL are paying for their flying, mortgage etc. If I was in a school run by somebody with that attitude I'd leave and they would be very clear about why I'd left.

I'm sure that a lot of people who apply for an NPPL will take as long to get their licence as a PPL, some people take a while to learn the basic skills. If these people do not want to do an IMC or fly foriegn but DO want a reasonable medical then the NPPL is the way to go. I can count of the fingers of one hand the number of times I've been to France (although I did fly in Singapore) so the relaxed medical now that I'm 45 will be very welcome. As you can gather, I think the NPPL is a great idea. It has long been known (even by the CAA) that the PPL medical is over restrictive eg when did an ECG (Extra Cash Generator) ever predict heart problems. Oh, that's never then.

A person driving an HGV down any one of Britain's motorways is 99% sure to do far more damage if he/she dies at the wheel than if the same person was in a light aircraft. More or less by definition truckers operate in a relatively high people density environment, pilots generally don't for the majority of their flying. Also, when was the last accident in the UK caused by a trucker dying at the wheel? I can't recall one. :confused:

Rant mode OFF

[BEagle]

Yes, you can upgrade from NPPL(SEP) to JAR-FCL PPL with SEP rating.

Currently there is only one way and that is to top up all the NPPL training you did (which must have been with a JAR-FCL FI) by adding any extra dual, solo, cross-country time you need before taking the JAR-FCL PPL Skill Test. No further theoretical requirements - one reason why we agreed not to introduce the NPPL-specific exams we were considering.

I will be asking for another way to be introduced to allow those who obtained their NPPL(SEP) through licence allowances (e.g. by topping up SLMG, glider or microlight time) with further 'experience' requirements. These proposals are currently sub rosa.

The reason why some people would start with the NPPL and go on to the JAR-FCL PPL is primarily that of cost. It will take less flying time; all the basic training is the same for either licence and the NPPL navigation element is about the same as it used to be for the UK PPL. Many folk will be happy to build up their experience over a few years, then upgrade to JAR-FCL PPL. Then add the IMC Rating and/or night qualification, then maybe the multi Rating.

There is nothing stopping people doing most of their JAR-FCL PPL upgrade on a multi, if that's what they want and can afford, of course.

[Census boy]

As someone who had their medical revoked by the jobsworth staff of the CAA medical division I welcome the introduction of the NPPL. I've now got my declaration form signed by my GP who was happy to do so (but had to part with £70 for the privelege). So I shall soon be endeavouring to get in a SEP skills test and difference training for the SLMG. Guess you don't get a discount for applying for both at the same time? So well done to Beagle and his colleagues for making this possible.

Incidentally for someone deemed unfit to hold a PPL I've been flying sailplanes and now have all three diamonds which for those who don't know is cross country flights of 300 and 500 kilometres and a height gain of 16400 feet (went to 21000 feet in Aboyne,Scotland).

[Croqueteer]

Never turn down a chance to cut restrictions! As a semi retired airline captain with over 15000 hours and a Jodel operated under the PFA, when the company finally stops paying my medical I shall be delighted to change to an NPPL with the considerably lower medical costs, and as the restrictions on my a/c match the restrictions on the NPPL, no problems. Hopelfully many happy years of standing in grass fields in UK chatting to the same people I chatted to a week ago in a different field. There is no sane reason for not backing the NPPL!

[ETOPS773]

I think at the end of the day the NPPL is a great thing.Getting more people in the skies can only be a good thing.
As Beagle mentioned,it CAN be upgraded to a PPL...I honestly think the pilots who get a NPPL will be safe and I will be more than happy to share the skies with them.

Think about it,for most,you`ve gone solo in under say 25 hours...you can take off,climb out to a desired altitude,do basic turns to a desired heading,and that controlled crash to earth called landing!!folks,thats all there is to the rocket science of flying!!!...I think the biggest problem (if there were one) would be navigating..I`m not sure of the x/c time required.

[Rod1]

Lets take a look at this in a different way. The NPPL is designed for fun flying.

It will allow a lot of existing pilots of Microlights and Gliders to get a more useful licence in vastly less time and expense than the old system.

It will allow a lot of ex pilots to get their licences back at relatively low expense.

It will allow a lot of ex pilots and want to be pilots to get a licence who would not pass the expensive and unnecessary JAR medical.

OK so what if you do not fit into any of the above.

I currently hold a full medical, which has just been renewed at a cost of £100 and ½ a day of my time. I have to go through this process every 2 years. On an NPPL I would have to get a certificate signed by my doctor every 5 years, taking 5 min and costing about £40. Which would you choose?

Most people in the UK fly VFR and do not go abroad. Why would they want a JAR PPL?

1000’s of pilots in the UK are flying in PFA aircraft. These aircraft are not allowed in IMC or to fly ant Night. Why would these pilots want a JAR PPL?

There is a feeling that an NPPL holder is not a proper pilot, and one must go for a JAR PPL for some “snob value”. I hope this will cease. In time the NPPL holders will exceed the JAR version. We all need to be on the same side and pull together, or our hobby will be even more restricted.

There is much hope that an agreement can reached with France to accept NPPL holders, much like the old agreement covering Microlight pliots. If this happens, even more people will switch to NPPL, including me.

Rod

[englishal]

I believe in essence the NPPL is a very good idea. My only misgivings are the fact that its being 'marketed' as a cheaper way to fly. At the end of the day, the ground exams are the same, the required flight standard is the same (baring a few instruments), the 'post NPPL rental costs are the same for those of us not owning our own aircraft, and for someone not already a µlight or glider pilot, the number of hours needed will be roughly (+/-) equivalent to the JAR FCL PPL, so I can't see any 'real' savings. (After 40 or so hours, I wouldn't have considered my self safe to fly friends and family around the skies). Upgrading to JAR FCL PPL will incure additional costs as well.

Ok, reduced medical requirements (not so much costs, mine cost GBP 50 last renewal) and for those already with the PFA and their own A/C, it is an excellent idea.

Now what would REALLY make a difference is if the CAA released a NPPL FI rating, allowing JAR FCL PPLs to gain this rating and instruct for free, without having to undergo CPL exams and class 1 medical. I for one would gladly give up some of my time to instruct for no fee....

I have no problem with the reduced hours aspect, if someone can fly after 30 hours then thats fine. I don't believe may 'new'pilots can though. Also I have no problem with reduced medical standards, the JAA Class 2 is far too stringent in my opinion.

Rgds
EA:)

[Kirstey]

Englishal - you can get an FI rating with a JAA-PPL I think and instruct for free. The issue here is you'd be robbing professional instructors of an already meagre living. What CFI in his right mind will employ someone if people are willing to do it for free?

[Field In Sight]

You will still need to pass at least the CPL exams to instruct free or otherwise.

Anyway, the NPPL provides extra options, with at least a half decent upgrade path for further ratings that's at least an improvement.

The US offer a similar rating, "sport license" or something like that. It's not taken up much there apparently, but maybe because It's cheap to fly there anyway and the FAA license is a bit more relaxed.

The JAA should just add a class 3 medical (based on some nationally recognised statement of health e.g. HGV license) and then just have relevant restrictions placed on the use of the PPL.

[Genghis the Engineer]

A couple of years ago a chum of mine decided to get his PPL(A). He had at the time about 5000 hrs, most in microlights (he's an instructor examiner) and the remaining 500 or so in gliders.

CAA in it's wisdom allowed him 10 hrs off the PPL course. So there he was, just so he could fly a Luscombe (noticeably slower than some microlights), doing stall awareness, cross-countries, etc. for 35 hrs with an instructor vastly less experienced than he was.

What was lacking was cross-crediting, the system should just have allowed him to do a type conversion and a group A GFT (okay, skills test). Okay, maybe a couple of hours radio nav as well.

What NPPL does, beyond all else, is bring in that ability - for sensible crediting arrangements for experienced microlight, glider or SLMG pilots to change to group A (for for that matter, the other way around, or sideways) if there's something there they want to fly.

So, NPPL, is the way this was solved - fine, it's one solution.

In the meantime, the microlight syllabus is 25 hrs and usually takes 40, the SEP syllabus is 45 hrs and usually takes 70, odds are the 32 hr NPPL(SEP) syllabus will usually take about 50. Still a saving.

No it's not for everbody, and very few people will ever get any license in minimum hours. Personally I need a JAR license to fly foreign registered aircraft for example. But for the less fit, less well off, less patient, or those who simply want a modular route to flying different things, it makes good sense.

What I fail to understand, is why the heck all this couldn't be done under JAR! !!!

G

[Ludwig]

Kirstey do I smell a vested interest here? If one aim of the NPPL is to lower the cost of flying training is it not sensible to have volunteer PPL FI's doing training in god forbid, a/c on a normal Cof A or even PFA permit? I know a number of PPL's who would be happy to instruct foc, and a number of CPL FI's who intrsuct for the hell of it once the day job is over.

Personally I really do not see the point of the NPPL other than for those who cannot get a medical otherwise. I know a number of very good pilots who have been medicalled out by the CAA in the face of opinions from non CAA Dr's that there is no reason why they should not fly. The real answer, rather than invent a new national licence would just be to make the CAA medical rules more sensible. The lower training requirement is a red herring, as the instructors and examiners wil be working to the same standards as they do now and so if your will pass the NPPL your would have passed the PPL and if not your wouldn't. Might open the way for headline adverts on price though to get people through the door.

[GRP]

I suspect the NPPL will only work out cheaper for people who can find a school that supports it.

[Troy Tempest]

Is there a problem finding schools to offer the NPPL? Here in the North East I've had no problem finding people who want to teach me to fly on the NPPL - the major issue has been choosing which school! The one I've chosen welcomed me with open arms as their first NPPL student and we both agree that it will be a voyage of discovery!!!! The only thing to make it a perfect licence would be for the powers that be to give me some credit for the 25 hours I gained pre JAR working towards the PPL.

[BEagle]

TT - what do those 25 hours consist of? If they're SEP instruction they should count.

The issue of NPPL(SEP) holders being permittted to hold some form of FI rating is a thorny one. Some are in favour, others vehemently against. My personal view is that any FI(NPPL(SEP)) should have at least the same level of training and theoretical knowledge as did the old BCPL/FI and the same rights of remuneration. Perhaps there could be a 'Basic FI' course which would encompass all such training; however, any 'Basic FI' should have rather more qualifying experience than the modular CPL holder. That would be in order to atttract only those who really have an interest in flight instruction rather than those merely looking for a way of 'hours building'. But anyone taught by a non JAR-FCL FI may have difficulty upgrading to their own JAR-FCL PPL under current rules.

The NPPLSC is required by its own earlier decision to start discussing the concept of NPPL holders instructing for remuneration at the next committee meeting.

[Kirstey]

Hi Ludwig,

I don't have a vested interested. And (typically for me!) the post came out a bit more over zealous than was intended - apologies! however I do believe that people put a huge amout of effort and of course expense to qualify to make a living out of flying.

Instructors earn a meagre leaving in exchange for a fantastic view from the office. I have a job that pays very well and enables to hop into a plane pretty much whenever I fancy it. I would feel bad about taking income from them by instructing for free.

Having said that the instructors at my school all seem OK about the idea of people instructing for free - and I guess these guy's opinion is more relevant than my own on this matter!

[Rod1]

I guess the remuneration issue is one, which will have a lot of self interest tied up with it. If you take the NPPL as a licence for fun flying, then we are talking about a hobby. You can find fully qualified instructors teaching most hobbies for free. Take Canoeing, mountaineering etc, all have qualified people giving free tuition in there spare time, I know, I did it for years.

If you allow these people to teach on permit aircraft from unlicensed strips you will be teaching people to fly light aircraft, who only want to fly light aircraft. Most current schools seem to teach you to fly a light aircraft like a heavy, because they may want to do an ATPL like the instructor teaching them. In this way we can separate out the potential airline pilot, who should pay for his training, his eventual aim is after all to make a living at flying, from the amateur enthusiast who has no interest in JAR upgrades and ATPL’s.

[solent01]

I would like to bring to some peoples attention that the NPPL is a recreational licence, and was brought in for the sake of people who only want to fly in the UK under VFR and during the day, also it allows for sensible cross crediting onto other ratings/licenses.

There are many comments about this licence not being a safe alternative to the JAR-FCL PPL, and that the hours required to gain this licence are sub-standard........

Well to this all I can say is that it is down to the Instructors and Examiners to set the safety standard, as it always has been. Just because the minimum required is 33hrs it doesn't mean at 33hrs you will get the licence, the same applies to the JAR-FCL PPL, just because you have 45hrs logged it doesn't make you a PPL. As a CFI, GR examiner and Operations Manager I don't care about hrs of training needed, I care about safety, you will only be booked in for a test when you are safe to share the same air space with others, and that poeple who fly with you will be in safe hands, so regardless of licence type being trained for, if it takes 50, 55, 60 or even 65hrs then thats the time needed.

When it comes to instructors putting the licence down, because they dont think they can train people safely in the hrs well, how many of you got your licence in the minimum hrs required?

Also I have first hand experiance of a few CPL's with instructor ratings being of sub-standard material, and questioned their right to hold the said licenses.

Going back to the issue of cross crediting and upgrades, you can now gain a NPPL with microlight rating, get hours under your belt, then train and add an SEP rating, again build hours then with more training gain the JAR-FCL PPL, know all of a sudden you are on the ladder to becoming a CPL or ATPL fantastic.

oh and for those of you that think Microlights are not real aircraft, I fly Helicopters, M/lights and group A. The skill level required to fly these aircraft are in the order they read, Helicopters taking the most skill, then Microlights and then Group A, so next time you look down your nose at a microlight pilot just take a moment to think about your skill level and if you could pull off a greaser with 10-15 knots cross wind in an aircraft weighing only 255ish kg unlaiden or 450kg max all up? if you think you can, come and try it, you could be in for a big surprise.

So to round it all up, I think the NPPL is the best thing that has happened to GA for a long time. But as always this is just IMHO

Sol

[englishal]

I do understand that FI's might get a bit pissed off with PPLs teaching the NPPL. However its all about making flying as cheap as possible, as a hobby, and this is one way it could be done seeing as the Government don't allow tax-free fuel.

CPL FI's would still have their place, teaching the JAA PPLers, Instruments and CPLs of this world, I'm sure the NPPL won't detract from the number of 'wannabe's'. Besides, no doubt NPPL FIs would still have to complete some sort of course, trained by 'real' FIs....

Cheers
EA;)

[Troy Tempest]

Hi BEagle

Going back to my earlier message the 25 hours I previously gained were SEP on the same type aircraft I'm learning on now! - I've been told from various sources that I can and can't count them towards the NPPL so some clarification would be really useful as it's a bit confusing at the moment. Obviously I know that this wouldn't mean I could get the licence in 32 hours but the fact that there would be a recognition of the previous hours would assist me no end!

[BEagle]

TT - if it was SEP time with an FI including training such as for a military flying scholarship or if it was UAS flying with a RAF QFI, there is no reason why it shouldn't count towards NPPL training.

Specifically what were these 25 hours?

[dedstikyfingerz]

After working in aviation for some time I have had safety and standards coming out of my ears for ages now, the NPPL seems to make a mockery of what I thought the CAA stood for "standards and competence". Now the NPPL is in place the CAA are asking about opperating from unlicenced airfields with non pub cat a/c. Recipie for disaster, no fire crew, no air ground and less stringent maintenance scheduals.
I agree that flying should be made more accessable and indeed things like diesel engines and microlights make for a far more sensible route of allowing people with less spare cash to get in the air.
Are these people on this planet? (ICAO) I get the vibe from various sources in the CAA that thier feeling is the same as yours but they gotta do what they gotta do!! ;) ;)

[Troy Tempest]

Hi again BEagle

The 25 SEP hours I logged were gained when I was learning to fly for the pre JAR PPL. Basically it was all the exercises up until I completed 4 hours solo and about to start on the Nav (which is when I became a student and the money ran out!) It wasn't UAS or a military scholarship, however it was at a very good Aero club with a qualified FI, logbook signed and annotated with previous exercises carried out!

Do you think this could count towards the NPPL?

[englishal]

Now the NPPL is in place the CAA are asking about opperating from unlicenced airfields with non pub cat a/c. Recipie for disaster, no fire crew, no air ground and less stringent maintenance scheduals.

and microlights make for a far more sensible route of allowing people with less spare cash to get in the air.

I don't understand what you're trying to say DSF, as you seem to contradict yourself??

Cheers
EA:)

[BEagle]

TT - that previous training should be accepted.

[Taildragger]

Here we go again.!! I thought this had been done to death in a previous thread. The principle behind the Medical being signed by your GP is simply that the CAA take the view (As do the administrative bodies) that it is not the person you see once every two years aor one year, and then maybe only once, that is in the best position to gauge your overall health. It is your GP who knows your medical history. Can't B.ull****.
As to the gibe about "Old men"....well I don't think I will rise to that one, but those who have lost their licence on medical grounds will welcome the opprtunity to be back in the air performing the passion that they love. No, No, not that one.!!
What are the medics looking for here.?? Something that will pose a highly increased risk of someone dropping dead at the controls....such as chronic heart disease, or a brain haemorrhage or similar. Not Diabetes, or something insidious.
I said before, and I will repeat it... Some of thios debate smacks of retaining the Old Morse and Technical examination in the Radio Amateur exam. The argument seems to be.."If I did it, then you have to"
It is very very seldom that we see a piece of legislation that helps people in this fashion instead of hindering them. If you cannot give a good example of why the NPPL should NOT be introduced, then I suggest that you simply applaud it. You will all get older one day and may be very happy of it. My aircraft partner, a hightime airline pilot will retire in approx 5 months time, and he has said how difficult it is for him to keep getting through his medicals, and how much he was looking forward to staisfying less stringent requirements....so your time will come.
Come on folks.....as Betty Boothroyd said in the House of Commons when she retired "Be happy for me".

[LowNSlow]

dedstikyfingerz, look at the fire fighting and medical capabilities of most small licensed airfields and then at an unlicendsed airfield like Popham. I don't think you will find much difference because common sense prevails. Anyway, when did a fire crew or air/ground radio ever assist a first solo.

In terms of SEP aircraft I think you will find that the difference in maintenance standards between a Public and Private Cat CofA is exactly zero.

Lets be logical, a lot of the rules regarding flying instruction are pretty overdone. It wasn't so long ago that people had "only" to pass an exam to determine whether or not they were a) competent pilots, b) competent instructors. Then some genius at the CAA decided that they had to be CPL's to earn money. The change was nothing to do with the competency of the instructors simply the ironing out of a legal wrinkle. If the NPPL can take us back down the road where a competent NPPL or PPL can pass their FI's rating why not do it? If they could get paid for doing it as well, then it's a bonus.

There have been many instances of poor instruction by bods who see their instructing phase as a step on their path to a RHS in a 737. Fair enough as long as you give fair service (2 of my instructors were doing this and still managed to teach me in a competent manner :D). However, a PPL FI who is teaching people for the love of it (and some beer money) and teaching people who are never going to be upgrading is a perfectly acceptable situation IMHO. If the PFA could expand their coaching scheme under the auspices of the NPPL into something similar to that described above I think it would galvanise the GA industry.

[BEagle]

PFA coaches are now proper CRIs and will have to revalidate their CRI ratings in accordance with JAR-FCL. A CRI is not entitled to conduct ab-initio (i.e. pre-PPL) training, so their main activities will be 'differences training' and 'conversion' training. The latter will be very useful, for example, in assisting a new owner of a specific homebuilt aircraft type with which a PFA expert on type would be very familiar.

But to be remunerated, the PFA CRI must hold a commercial licence; hence there is currently no question of 'expanding the PFA coaching scheme to cover NPPL instruction'. Nor do I envisage significant changes to current FI requirements being proposed by the NPPLSC whilst there is a plentiful number of JAR-FCL FIs already in the industry. As there is at present.

On another tack, how would people view the idea of a single 100 question NPPL exam for which there would be no credit towards JAR-FCL training, compared with current requirements?

One significant benfit of the current JAR-FCL PPL exams is their credit of 100 hours towards CPL ground training. But are they over-the-top for the NPPL? Or would their replacement be viewed as unacceptable dumbing-down of what are hardly particularly difficult exams, if current pass rates are to be believed...

[Census boy]

LowNSlow-I'm not knocking Popham and most of my power flying has been out of there in the past but I'd wouldn't relish the thought of relying on the very limited fire fighting capabilities of there or many other airfields for that matter. Incidentally I was asked to drive the fire truck at an airfield I fly from the other week back to the hangar and it ran out of fuel halfway back so a fat lot of use that would have been in an emergency.

[LowNSlow]

Census boy I was actually having a pop at what dedstikyfingerz was saying regarding putting training at (shock horror) unlicenced airfields. I was using Popham as a good example of the facilities available at an unlicenced airfield. The facilities may be relatively basic but they are better than those at some licensed fields I've been to.

BEagle I think the 100 question exam would give the knockers of the NPPL more grist for their mill. Keeping the existing exams ensures that standards are seen to be maintained. As you said, they are not that hard if you've done the work.
Regarding the CPL for instructors issue, I don't see why this is a requirement of PPL or NPPL instructors apart from the fact it was easier to impose a BCPL, as was, on the FI's rather than change the ANO to allow instructing for hire & reward by a PPL holder with an FI rating.
To pick up on another point, there are indeed plenty of JAR-FCL FIs around at the moment. How many will there be in five years time as the airline industry picks up? Will there be the same flow of people instructing and moving on? Probably I suppose, but it doesn't make it better for the bods who want to be instructors and not airline pilots as it maintains the status quo of crap pay, long hours and insecurity.

[Aerobatic Flyer]

BEagle
On another tack, how would people view the idea of a single 100 question NPPL exam for which there would be no credit towards JAR-FCL training, compared with current requirements?
I think the current exam requirements have a few problems.

1. If you have a reasonable short-term memory, you can get a good pass mark by reading the appropriate chapters of a Trevor Thom book the night before. You don't need to really understand the subject to pass.

2. A significant amount of the content is irrelevant to 90% of the recreational flying that most PPLs do. This is mostly in the technical, met and human perf. areas.

3. The exams don't take place under exam conditions - unless the school makes the effort, that is. I have met one PPL holder who admitted to "having a bit of help from his instructor" during an exam.

I think that a well devised 100 question exam could address issues (1) and (2). Simplify the content of the exams to what is relevant and necessary, and then test that candidates really understand it. I'm not sure how you address issue (3) without adding a layer of bureaucracy, however.

[notice]

Agreed that NPPL = Naff Private Pilots Licence, although it's obviously a good loophole for the 'medical problem' cases and totally typical of the flying club corner-cutting chaps.
They have conned the CAA but anyone serious should still go for the JAA-PPL and it might, in practice, be cheaper, certainly in the long run.

[LowNSlow]

notice what a well presented and thought out response. I'm sure the people who have worked long and hard to bring some sense into PPL licensing requirements will appreciate you insight and wisdom.

[Croqueteer]

Notice, I bet you wear sunglasses and a leather jacket and drive a Porche.

[Monocock]

Notice,

Slightly more "up front" than I would have described the licence myself but along the same lines.

Why is it when everything else in this world is requiring a higher prowess and aptitude to achieve than it used to.........did an easy version of flying become available all of a sudden.

It is NOT PPL snobbery that I am showing, I just feel that if such a licence HAD to evolve surely it would have made more sense for the NPPL to be a 40 hr minimum licence and the PPL a 50 hr one.

What will be next, a RPPL? A licence that one can achieve in 23 hrs but means you cannot fly outside of a certain regional altimeter setting region?

How about the CPPL. You can have a licence in 7 hrs but must not cross the county border.....?????

It might sound cynical, but where will it all end?

[andrewc]

Its interesting that we are getting positive press from both
the US & France in terms of our introduction of the NPPL...

Maybe we're doing something right for once,

-- Andrew

[Troy Tempest]

Why is it when everything else in this world is requiring a higher prowess and aptitude to achieve than it used to.........did an easy version of flying become available all of a sudden.
And everything else in the world also requires an evidence base to show that it will work and the NPPL is no exception.

All the critics so far are suggesting that the minimum number of hours = poorer licence. Can anyone point me in the direction of the evidence that will back this up? (and I mean 32 as opposed to 45 rather than the slightly more obvious 1000 hours = slightly more experienced than 100!!!)

:)

[Genghis the Engineer]

Actually monocock your "RPPL" already exists. If you pass a microlight GFT and exams, but don't do your X-countries, you can be issued with a restricted PPL limiting you to 8nm from your take-off point.

It's served quite a few people well, including me when I was a very hard-up engineering graduate determined to fly but only barely able to afford that much. After a few hours solo you can carry pax, and when (as I did a year later, and a few hours under my belt) you've got a little more money, you can do the X-countries and get the restriction removed.

I believe a few people who fly powered parachute microlights have flown for years on this, since the things struggle to get out of sight of the take-off point anyway and there's little point since all they want to do is get airborne from the field behind their house and take an hours spin at 25kn around the local village. Not my style of flying personally, but why the hell not?

G

[BEagle]

You may be interested to know that there were many proposals made for the privileges and associated levels of training required for the sub-JAR/FCL PPL. We looked at a concept of a 'GH only' licence with pilots then being restricted to a certain radius from base. But this was seen as both unenforceable and non-conducive to noise pollution - since activities would be concentrated pretty well in the same areas.

Then we had a lengthy debate about the desireability or otherwise of night/IMC. In the end, it was agreed that there needed to be a clear demarcation; the NPPL would be 'simple, day VFR' and the next stage would be to upgrade to JAR/FCL PPL. This was agreed by those industry bodies representing their members and also the CAA.

So now we have a licence which will take a minimum of around 35 hours (32 plus 2 tests of about 1.5 hours) to complete. Looking back at my logbook for 1968, I see that I did precisely that then; yes, I had (as will many NPPL students) a little gliding time, but only an A and B certificate. We didn't do the Navigation Test, but we did an 'unseen' long cross-country with 2 intermediate landings - the first time I'd ever landed away from base! The NPPL covers the same general handling skills, the same basic navigation skills but tests rather better than I was tested on my PPL course - and all in about the same total of hours.

Some very experienced instructors and pilots have helped with the develoment of the NPPL; it is not a 'naff' PPL, it is merely returning the affordability of private day VFR flying to the levels of a few years ago whilst maintaining core safety levels.

Whilst name-calling and ill-informed comment will be generated by some and doubt will be cast by certain expensive flying schools who charge a fortune for the JAR/FCL PPL, the real feedback will only come when the demand for the new licence is assessed after a year or so.

[Ravenflyer]

Notice & Monocock,

What is your problem?

You are both, obviously, anti NPPL. So, don't get one.

Thousands of people, myself included, already have them. We are the microlight pilots who now automatically hold an NPPL with microlight rating.

We fly thousands and thousands of hours every year. We fly abroad. We fly hundreds of different types. We hardly ever make the news.

Many students struggle (financially) to complete a full JAR course only to find the costs of renting a tired old Cessna too prohibitive to allow more than a few hours flying a year.

Are these pilots safer than a pilot who, flying a permit aircraft on an NPPL, can afford to fly two or three time the hours a year?

I don't think so.

It's horses for courses, we don't ALL want to be CPL's or fly at night or in cloud.

Paul
Unrestricted microlight license in 40 hours over twelve months.
330 hours in 28 months since then! :-)

PS NOW I have a route into some of the wonderful 'heavy' microlights like Piper Cubs and Tiger Moths :-))

[BLW Skylark 4]

Whilst I haven't gone for an NPPL yet myself, one attraction I can see and one which the 'anti lobby' ignore is that it is only the NPPL that will give me any sort of credit for my gliding hours!

Maybe if the JAR PPL still did (as the old one used to) there would be less support for the NPPL but whilst it doesn't, all things considered the NPPL doesnt seem a bad idea. Especially if as Beags suggests you can then convert it to a JAR one later on if IMC & Night ratings appeal!

[englishal]

I still do not see how the licence is more affordable though? Its not going to be much cheaper UNLESS you have µlight or gliding hours.

Also don't forget that JAR will give credit of 10 hrs towards JAR FCL PPL (10% of PIC hrs in micro light up to max of 10), knocking down minimum requirement to 35 hrs.

As far as I'm concerned, there should be NO minimum hrs requirement. If a person can fly at 25 hrs, then fine give them a licence, if they can't fly till 60 hrs then don't give them a licence until then.

I'm not knocking the NPPL, I think it is a step in the right direction and would like to see the National licences expand to the point that JAR is out of the equation..

Rgds
EA:)

[bluskis]

Perhaps the most important point about the NPPL is that the British flying fraternity have found a route by which to overcome the incessant Brusselisation of our lives, and if not perfect in everyone's view, does give us the future ability to tweak and tailor it to suit British aviators.

More importantly, it may well be the one small step for Britainkind, and could lead to routes round other Brussels laws.

Before the more knowledgable cry out that JAR is not only Brussels, the way in which JAR was apparently formulated would have done Brussels proud.

Who knows, maybe one day Notice and Monocock will be proud holders of an NPPL in a future form.

I say well done Beagle & Co.

[Monocock]

SSSSTTTEEEAAAAAAAAAAADDDDYYYYYY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hang on a sec' chaps.

I am by no means against the NPPL for the reasons some of you seem to imagine. I am not a flying snob and I am certainly not a CPL with night ratings who wants to fly in cloud.

I have held a PPL for 13 years (I'm 30), have 580 hrs and ALL of my flying is VFR and I AM STILL LEARNING.

I have seen a friend meet his maker who was under experienced and that "possibly" contributed towards his end.

All I am asking is that we don't get carried away with this new licence. Someone has quoted on this thread that some people are ready to fly as PIC after 20 hours and others after 60. That is a very valid point.

I am just saying that by continually reducing the requirements to become fully fledged points only one way. That way is down.....

I love microlights and would relish the chance to have a go in one of those flexwings one day. They look great fun and I would like to become qualified at some point to fly one.

While us fixed wing PPL's would not have a clue as to how to handle a flex wing into a 220 m grass strip with a cross wind and rabid sheep in the way, how would a flex wing chap be able to feel confident approaching Birmingham A'port on a Saturday evening in a Cherokee.

Horses for courses, all I say is let's not try and amalgamate them into the same thing too soon...............for safetys sake.

[Croqueteer]

Bluskis, I 100% agree with you. As far as producing a competent pilot goes, that is up to the pupil, instructor, and the training organisation. I suspect the plonker/ace ratio will be about the same as a PPL.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Ravenflyer - you'll love the Super Cub, one of the best microlights ever built. Not as good in crosswinds as a flexwing though.

Monocock - if you don't mind sitting in the back (I'm afraid I'm not an instructor and don't have dual controls) drop me a note and I'd be delighted to demonstrate the joys of flexwing flying. Be warned, look what's happened to Whirly since I showed her !


Everybody - it does appear that much of the justification for NPPL was that minimum hours so long as you're competent, cross-crediting from other aircraft types, inclusion of microlights and SLMG as ratings, had vanished through the kackhanded implementation of JAR-FCL. It seems that most of the praise of the NPPL is that it's managed to circumvent what we all agreed from the start was unnecessary and excessive Eurocracy. What a world we live in !

G